[aaaaah]

Originally Posted by M2siast

Hahahaha OMG these guys can’t stop grasping at straws…

If it was reversed: “odd that they ran the G87 on Pzero tires”

Molto bene is his expression of enthusiasm for being able to control the CS…

Hear me out here, I don't want to be the cause of more pages of vitriol and nigh on jingoism for a particular model.

Perhaps he was observing that it would be more scientific if all three cars were on the same tyres, and the obvious one to change is the odd one out.



I was never here. *Homer backs into hedge.gif*

[mfarrzhp]

I won’t nitpick the lap times, but I can confirm my car is a bit more squirrelly on PSS with 6,500 spirited miles than it was when they were new. That said I think they do summer road duty just fine.

Considering the star Cup 2s for my next set since I only drive the car about 2,500 miles per year in good weather.

[hoyasaxa]

Originally Posted by VIERsr

https://www.instagram.com/tv/CXtlPUN...M0MjE2YWMzOA==
The reason is clearly explained here, if you want I can gladly translate, but I don't have time to waste on feeding the trolls.

Bitching about a long second gear is not “clearly explain[ing]” anything. It’s also trite and cliche. All Porsches have a long second gear and pretty much every reviewer has mentioned it. It doesn’t explain the lap time differential.

[VIERsr]

Originally Posted by hoyasaxa

Bitching about a long second gear is not “clearly explain[ing]” anything. It’s also trite and cliche. All Porsches have a long second gear and pretty much every reviewer has mentioned it. It doesn’t explain the lap time differential.

For that specific track, the GT4's gear ratios do not fit. The first is too short, the second too long.
All other Porsches are turbo.
The only NA Porsche is the GT3, which has shorter ratios than the GT4.
Also, it was December and the asphalt was cold.
That's all.

[VIERsr]

Originally Posted by Tag

Agree, weight affects everything! Acceleration, stopping, cornering, body roll, brakes, tires, excessive heat, etc. I'm sure they factored this into the G87 but no matter how well they mask it you'll feel it at some point. Regarding the G80 I think another big factor to people not upgrading is they didn't want be driving around in a limo with a butterface.

It is very true, weight is only a disadvantage, and the harder you drive, the worse it will be.
On the street it is not a problem, on the track it inevitably will be.
That said, the weight increase is about 200 lbs over the F87 Competition, which means that the old one was already a pig and the G87 is just a little more so; both are not (and do not want to be) track animals, and weight will be an issue just as it was for the other, it is not 200 lbs that makes the G87 a pig where the predecessor was a lightweight.
It would have been better 200 lbs less than 200 lbs more, but a 200 lbs heavier G87 performs much better than the F87.

[10"]

Originally Posted by werdn

I thought the "F generation" M cars were "nervous" in general. When I drove them, they felt like too much throttle too quickly then the rear will break loose. This is obviously a dramatic difference than I was used to in the last E generation with little/no torque and power up very high (8000rpm).

I think the f8x competition cars corrected this? But the m5 was a bit spikey compared to e60

Interesting because as a 1M owner to me the F87s I drove (on street and track) felt too stable and and too predictable *shrugs*

[VIERsr]

Originally Posted by 10"

Interesting because as a 1M owner to me the F87s I drove (on street and track) felt too stable and and too predictable *shrugs*

I agree, the M2 F87 is more planted on the ground than the 1M, let's say the 1M is a fun car, but not exactly a benchmark for driving accuracy, however you do get very good feedback from the steering.
The G87 is even more precise and stable than the F87 and the steering gives better feedback, but it is not up to the standard of the 1M.
But the huge improvement in the G87 is the way the suspension works and keeps the car glued to the ground.

[imperfectluck]

Originally Posted by VIERsr

But the huge improvement in the G87 is the way the suspension works and keeps the car glued to the ground.

Couldn’t agree with you more, out the box it was the thing I first noticed especially over un even road surfaces it handled itself really well out the box. It wasn’t until I got my Öhlins on my F87 did I realize the potential the car truly has but it didn’t come from the factory that way.
Would love to eventually hear some G8x owner feedback on proper coilovers on their cars as compared to the usually HAS nonsense.

[quenotte]

Originally Posted by VIERsr

The F82 Competition existed and had 265/285. Drive the cars and then talk, please.

I talk about base model because we currently don’t know what BMW will propose in the future on G8x platform, but you’re right to mention that we should not talk about G80 and G82 but only M2:

F87 tire width 245 front, 265 rear
G87 tire width 275 front, 285 rear
+30mm front, +20mm rear

Can’t be more obvious because F87 had only a single tire size set…

It may be very easy to compare: put same f87 245/265 tires on a G87!

You’ve the car, do it!

[quenotte]

Originally Posted by imperfectluck

Couldn’t agree with you more, out the box it was the thing I first noticed especially over un even road surfaces it handled itself really well out the box. It wasn’t until I got my Öhlins on my F87 did I realize the potential the car truly has but it didn’t come from the factory that way.
Would love to eventually hear some G8x owner feedback on proper coilovers on their cars as compared to the usually HAS nonsense.

F87 passive suspensions was very bouncy… Less on M2C that were heavier but still not top notched damped. Issue was corrected with M Performance coilover kit or adaptive suspension on F87CS.

[VIERsr]

Originally Posted by quenotte

I talk about base model because we currently don’t know what BMW will propose in the future on G8x platform, but you’re right to mention that we should not talk about G80 and G82 but only M2:

F87 tire width 245 front, 265 rear
G87 tire width 275 front, 285 rear
+30mm front, +20mm rear

Can’t be more obvious because F87 had only a single tire size set…

It may be very easy to compare: put same f87 245/265 tires on a G87!

You’ve the car, do it!

I don't have any G87, but don't see why we should compare cars that don't exist, and above all I can't believe that anyone could be so dumb to believe that an F87 with bigger tires can perform as well as a G87, ignoring everything else (suspension, chassis stiffness, electronics and so on), and screwing up the overall balance and setup of the car. Go read how many people found their car gone crazy with DSC just because they put random size wheels.
For people like you, the G8x are just heavy F8x with bigger tires, ignoring the development of a completely new platform.
Wouldn't it be easier to drive the cars first and then talk?
Or simply and honestly admit that you don't like/can't afford the new one instead of talking nonsense?

[quenotte]

Originally Posted by VIERsr

I don't have any G87, but don't see why we should compare cars that don't exist, and above all I can't believe that anyone could be so dumb to believe that an F87 with bigger tires can perform as well as a G87, ignoring everything else (suspension, chassis stiffness, electronics and so on), and screwing up the overall balance and setup of the car. Go read how many people found their car gone crazy with DSC just because they put random size wheels.
For people like you, the G8x are just heavy F8x with bigger tires, ignoring the development of a completely new platform.
Wouldn't it be easier to drive the cars first and then talk?
Or simply and honestly admit that you don't like/can't afford the new one instead of talking nonsense?

Wahou…

You say that you don’t have a G87 and that I can’t afford a G87.
And since you may be the only guy on this planet to have driven a G8x, you clearly can say that others way of thinking is a nonsense.

My point was: they put big tires to try to compensate the big increase in weight, like regular car builder -Audi for example- do.

Obviously they carried-out all car setup with that.

It gives the change but not for too much time.

It’s a new BMW era that I clearly don’t like. It’s now driven by bean counters from Audi.
Up to generation F, BMW spent money focusing on car platform, with driving pleasure in mind.
That’s why we had fantastic motors, nicely balanced chassis, with a specific care on weight, size, inertia, throttle response and top-notch ergonomics. And very nice rwd hot hatches like M135i/M140i.

When 7 series introduced CLAR platform, I was very enthusiast: massive usage of low-weight materials (high strength irons, aluminium, carbon core…)
That lead to a 740 in the 1700kg range, very nicely built, with high end suspension design…
Issue is that 5 serie then had less costly weight reducing materials than a 7, same for a 3 vs a 5.
And then you have a M240i and thus a M2 that have the same weight as a 740i that is in a completely different league. Drive them and you will notice.

Want is their mantra? Appearances, bling-bling, basically what Audi does on their rebadged VW models.

And, instead of leading market with a strong identity, they are now following with delays.

Their key “innovation” is their touchscreens with lots of useless icons, leds and other tic-toc features. Did you try to change a/c temperature while driving on that? Infamous touchscreen feature that is dangerous. Luckily you have lane assistant. Ergonomics was a key element of every BMW, even a small E21 315 than your vision of French people can afford.

Bean counters are everywhere now at BMW. Did you seat in an i5 M60? Floor mats are now fixed like in an entry level fiesta…
No effort on weight on low-mid level models.
A G82 CSL is weighting more than a base F82. For what price?
3.0CSL Hommage concept car was great. Final 3.0CSL is just a badly G82 replastering (look at this georgeous Hofmeister kink!). For what price?

When you see what Albert Biermann did at Hyundai/Kia and what Audi guys did at BMW in the meantime, you cry…

[LCDRJohn]

I wanted to just add a few notes to the "weight" discussion because I keep hearing "pig" and other terms used to describe a street car. Which is odd and an oversimplification.

The first thing is that even in a converted street car to a sanctioned race platform (think GT Cup), a decision is made to balance the pros and cons of "weight". Cutting half the tub can reduce weight and make a slow and dangerous car.

For example, will adding 10% weight be a good thing, if it increases body rigidity by 100%? What does the stopwatch say? Will the tires last longer because the suspension can be more supple? Will the predictability of a more rigid chassis make the car faster with humans driving it?

Another example: If we add 5% more weight to the lower pan to decrease roof weight while keeping the same rigidity, (the goal being to lower CG) will the car handle better despite being a bit heavier overall?

Another example: if we increase weight by 10% but it buys more durability in the axles, suspension, and transmission, is the trade-off worth the expense?

Forgive me if I sometimes bristle that we use this geometric logic that "weight is bad". It is quite relative. Sure, we want it minimized, but there are many considerations that saturate engineering and design departments. Outside of purpose built tubs and ground-up designs, the decision matrix is far more complex than expected. One example is the Lotus Elise. The numbers and race results produced by that car never added up to the promise of its lower weight. But that is another whole discussion.

[quenotte]

You can also work in the reverse order of that
What would be the benefit of having a carbon fiber drive shaft?
BMW did lots of efforts to save weights on previous generations with a big pressure on car price tag.
What makes them more connected, easy to understand was the fact that they were lighter compared to their competitors.
That’s not the case anymore. An M3 is even as heavy as an M5.
Instead of spending money on platform, they designed specific, completely useless bling bling features such as single bolt wheels, manga’s aero, Lexus exhaust pipes,… just for tictockers
They are doing exactly what lead them nearly to bankruptcy in the late 50s: too big cars, too powerful, too expensive, too boring, completely at the opposite of what a leading manufacturer should do: small, nimble, pleasant to drive, to contemplate, comfortable, with top notch ergonomics and build quality and affordable for mid level salaries…
Like the neue klasse in the early 60s

[JetDriver]

The top three times are way too close to say one is better than the other. With a new gen chassis and way more power, I would have expected the G87 to be a lot quicker.

[VIERsr]

Originally Posted by quenotte

Wahou…

You say that you don’t have a G87 and that I can’t afford a G87.
And since you may be the only guy on this planet to have driven a G8x, you clearly can say that others way of thinking is a nonsense.

My point was: they put big tires to try to compensate the big increase in weight, like regular car builder -Audi for example- do.

Obviously they carried-out all car setup with that.

It gives the change but not for too much time.

It’s a new BMW era that I clearly don’t like. It’s now driven by bean counters from Audi.
Up to generation F, BMW spent money focusing on car platform, with driving pleasure in mind.
That’s why we had fantastic motors, nicely balanced chassis, with a specific care on weight, size, inertia, throttle response and top-notch ergonomics. And very nice rwd hot hatches like M135i/M140i.

When 7 series introduced CLAR platform, I was very enthusiast: massive usage of low-weight materials (high strength irons, aluminium, carbon core…)
That lead to a 740 in the 1700kg range, very nicely built, with high end suspension design…
Issue is that 5 serie then had less costly weight reducing materials than a 7, same for a 3 vs a 5.
And then you have a M240i and thus a M2 that have the same weight as a 740i that is in a completely different league. Drive them and you will notice.

Want is their mantra? Appearances, bling-bling, basically what Audi does on their rebadged VW models.

And, instead of leading market with a strong identity, they are now following with delays.

Their key “innovation” is their touchscreens with lots of useless icons, leds and other tic-toc features. Did you try to change a/c temperature while driving on that? Infamous touchscreen feature that is dangerous. Luckily you have lane assistant. Ergonomics was a key element of every BMW, even a small E21 315 than your vision of French people can afford.

Bean counters are everywhere now at BMW. Did you seat in an i5 M60? Floor mats are now fixed like in an entry level fiesta…
No effort on weight on low-mid level models.
A G82 CSL is weighting more than a base F82. For what price?
3.0CSL Hommage concept car was great. Final 3.0CSL is just a badly G82 replastering (look at this georgeous Hofmeister kink!). For what price?

When you see what Albert Biermann did at Hyundai/Kia and what Audi guys did at BMW in the meantime, you cry…

The nonsense is to think that the only added value to the dynamics of the new M-cars comes only from larger tires, which is the way Bmw used to compensate for the weight increase.
This is not only false, it is also technically wrong.
You only have to drive a normal 2-3-4 series to realise how much better the new platform is over the previous generation, and there has been no increase in tire size there. It is just a better platform, as we expect after years of development, I would be surprised otherwise.
I agree that the new trend of Bmw (but also of all other brands) is going in a direction away from tradition and driving pleasure, but we have to be aware that the market has changed, priorities have changed, regulations have changed, and Bmw - just like the others - is there to sell cars and make profits, not to make a small group of nostalgic old school fans happy.
Today, a car without some of the safety and driver assistance equipment you mentioned cannot be sold in Europe, while some comfort/technology elements are mandatory in 2023 if you want to be a leader in the premium segment. All these things cost money and kilos.
But we are lucky enough to have upgrades in the engine/chassis compartment as well.
Audi developed the new RS3 with 0 (ZERO) engine updates compared to the previous generation, MB made a C63 with a hybrid powertrain, are we really going to complain about 90 kg? Come on!
We have to be aware of the times we are living in and thank Bmw if we can have in 2023 a car with an ICE engine, RWD, manual transmission and no autonomous driving.
Everything can be better, but in this case it could have been much worse.

[AndreM2]

Tire size does matter!

Put on the same size and brand as an M2c on the new m2.

Compare an M2cs with 450hp and the new M2 on track with same brand and tire size.

I can tell you which one is faster. The lighter one.

I drive with my 950kg 345hp e30 m3 DTM 91 spec race car faster times then a new M2 cup car from bmw motorsport with 450hp and 500nm. Thing weighs 1500kg in race spec. Please! It flies thru brakes and Tires. My 950kg DTM is faster and has hardly wear on brakes and tires.

Weight kills the fun in any car. BMW knows that but they keep on building bigger en heavier cars. People are still buying into it so why start engineering on lightness.

I enjoy my 1M with lighter recaro seats. It is low in the 1400kg now and for me that is acceptable 1700kg isn’t

Next to that the new M2 is way to big! The size of an 1M coupe is perfect. If i want a bigger car to go with my family i buy myself an m3, m4, M5, X3M or an x5M choices enough. But choices for a nimbler smaller lighter car are not there anymore at BMW M! A big loss for us driver enthusiasts.

Thats why i have bought a GR86 (1270kg) and a GT4RS (1415kg) and keep my 1M Coupe (1440kg) Cars i love to drive.

I am willing to invest in a new BMW M but not what is offered right now.

[Squidget]

Also, I call "rose colored glasses" on the cost thing. Some quick inflation checks:

E46 M3: $46K in 1998, about $86K today
E92 M3: $57K in 2008, about $80K today
E82 1M: $46K in 2011, about $62K today (if you could get one MSRP, lol)

If anything, compiling this list made me appreciate the cost of the G87. It's great bang for buck.

It's just FILTHY that for $63K, I can get a 450+ HP do-it-all car with 4 seats, great interior, great performance, sports e-diff, big brakes, adaptive suspension, etc.

If the G87 performs anywhere close to the F87CS (which costs $20K more), it's impressive. If it's equal or better, it's unbelievable. This is the base G87, remember.

[Squidget]

Originally Posted by AndreM2

Thats why i have bought a GR86 (1270kg) and a GT4RS (1415kg) and keep my 1M Coupe (1440kg) Cars i love to drive.

An interesting point. But I must note that you don't sound like M's target audience. Someone like you, who can afford to buy a bunch of single-purpose cars, has no need for a do-it-all car. Which is really what M is all about.

The well-rounded jack-of-all-trades M strategy is awesome for people like me, who need a sports car daily driver. And yes, that adds weight. But for the target audience, the benefits far, far outweigh the negatives. It's not even close. I'd never daily a GR86, as fun as it can be on the street.

[VIERsr]

Originally Posted by AndreM2

Tire size does matter!

Put on the same size and brand as an M2c on the new m2.

Compare an M2cs with 450hp and the new M2 on track with same brand and tire size.

I can tell you which one is faster. The lighter one.

I drive with my 950kg 345hp e30 m3 DTM 91 spec race car faster times then a new M2 cup car from bmw motorsport with 450hp and 500nm. Thing weighs 1500kg in race spec. Please! It flies thru brakes and Tires. My 950kg DTM is faster and has hardly wear on brakes and tires.

Weight kills the fun in any car. BMW knows that but they keep on building bigger en heavier cars. People are still buying into it so why start engineering on lightness.

I enjoy my 1M with lighter recaro seats. It is low in the 1400kg now and for me that is acceptable 1700kg isn’t

Next to that the new M2 is way to big! The size of an 1M coupe is perfect. If i want a bigger car to go with my family i buy myself an m3, m4, M5, X3M or an x5M choices enough. But choices for a nimbler smaller lighter car are not there anymore at BMW M! A big loss for us driver enthusiasts.

Thats why i have bought a GR86 (1270kg) and a GT4RS (1415kg) and keep my 1M Coupe (1440kg) Cars i love to drive.

I am willing to invest in a new BMW M but not what is offered right now.

I think the world will come to terms with it.
At first I thought you had no idea what you were saying, now I am sure, the amount of nonsense you talk is too vast to be addressed in one post.

[Lappy]

I struggle to understand put the same tires on a f87 and the times will be faster than the g87 argument. You guys do realize that a 275/35/19 will NEVER fit on a f87 car correct? The G87 is heavier, it has wider wheels and more tire. It can also fit a lot more wheel and tire than the F87 platform. It's like they designed a new car or something.....

[ThreeStripes]

275/30/19 or 275/35/18 is actually fairly common on the F87. 305s on a 19x11 as the G87 can fit represents a significant advantage over both the stock wheel tire setup of the F87 as well as most track focused setups.

The reason that GridLife Touring Car races are so competitive despite fielding so many different vehicle types (age, drivetrain, etc) is they balance performance on four simple factors: grip, power, weight, and aero.

Note there is no magical 5th lever for, “chassis rigidity, suspension tuning, general set-up and balancing of all the components.”